3. How can you say it's a fraud?

How can you say anything about it? You can't verify any vote or at least no vote is verified, so how do you know the result is an accurate one?

The Germans are not dumb bunnies and the Highest Court in that country deciding constitutional issues has outlawed voting machines in the country, saying that you can't have a democracy when the vote cannot be verified by an average person. The Irish are pretty shrewd as well and they outlawed the machines for similar reasons.

The point is not hard to see. Naturally in any election there's a winner and a loser, and the loser is more likely to grouse about the results. That's not the point. The point is WHEN THE VOTE IS COUNTED IN TOTAL SECRECY WITHOUT VERIFICATION YOU. CANNOT. HAVE. A. DEMOCRACY.

6. Well, apparently you know more than the Obama campaign...

...and the DNC and the State Parties and the losing Democratic candidates, --none-- of which have filed an allegation of vote tampering.

Knowing how much some people here think about this issue, I asked, on Election Day, a very Senior Party official, if they were concerned, amd specifically if they were concerned about the software patch. Their legal and technical people investigated the issue and their answer was "no".

10. I wish I could rec an individual post

12. That doesn't mean it never occurred. I trust the computer scientists at Princeton U. and elsewhere

who have proved that such hacking is easily carried out.

If it hasn't happened yet, then it is only a matter of time. People haven't suddenly got more honest. Hacking happens everywhere else; it's awfully unrealistic to assume it will never happen with election computers.

And I"d much rather they work to prevent the problem than file an allegation of vote tampering after the fact.

9. Not a problem, n/t

11. Sexier to fear machines than voter suppression

The emphasis should be 1000x the other way, scrutiny toward old fashioned techniques of preventing votes instead of paranoia over machines.

But machine rigging became an industry on DU that went unchecked for many years. I still have no idea how Febble and OnTheOtherHand had the patience to deal with all the vote switch nutcases and their pathetic arguments toward 2004, in the Election Reform forum. That was the most one-sided debate I've ever seen, about as competitive as a giraffe in a limbo contest.

Fortunately the administrators here finally evicted the prime offenders, the ones who wanted to make it the sole concern of this site. Some of them tried to detour to DailyKos but Markos cut them off immediately, saying he wouldn't put up with the nonsense. Notice that Nate Silver never allows a word in that direction, despite dozens and dozens of comments asking if his numbers take theft into account.

21. Those who conducted the exit polls explained it best themselves

"Our investigation of the differences between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote count point to one primary reason: in a number of precincts a higher than average within-precinct error most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters. . . . While the size of the average exit poll error has varied , it was higher in 2004 than in previous years for which we have data," Lenski and Mitofsky wrote.

22. Thank you for that. I have always thought that exit polls were a highly

reliable indicator of actual votes (hence my suspicions). But that depends on every citizen engaging in good faith, not the rat-fucking stuff advocated by Limpballs and his cohort.

My main reason to doubt the 'Vote Machine Hackers' and their various theories is the results of 2008 and 2012. If the hackers were as all-powerful as theorized, why would Obama have won both times out? I've never seen a convincing explanation of this from the pro-hacker crowd (hence my continuing agnosticism).

Still mindful of Stalin's witticism, though, that "he who casts a vote decides nothing. He who counts the vote decides everything."

23. And Allen West would still be in the House if vote hacking was real.

25. Maybe RW fixers told a few RW radio hosts to tell their listeners to answer exit polls incorrectly.

The fixers could then later point to supposed widespread Republican voters' refusal to answer the exit polls and their proffering of incorrect answers as the reason the exit polls were wrong.

Of course, there is no way to prove a RW fix of the 2004 Ohio electronic voting machines (or a fix of the data therefrom) based solely on the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official results, even if the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official results was higher than that for previous years.

As a side note, the other day Limbaugh told his listeners that at least we learned that (in the 2012 election) the exit pools were accurate.

24. As predicted, the wing nuts are latching onto "electronic vote fraud" to explain how they lost

How I think the election was stolen.
Vanity | 11/11/12 | Tommy C

Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2012 10:59:11 AM by TommyC1

I believe that the election was stolen. All the signs pointed to a Romney/Ryan win. The enthusiasm was high in the GOP. The GOTV operation was excellent.

How then, did Obama win? I think they were running a sophisticated game of electronic vote stealing and ballot box stuffing.

What I am about to describe takes a lot of money. To me, one clue is the dog that didn’t bark: Soros. He was quiet during this election. Not a word from his puppets and minions. I vaguely thought this was odd. And now we know why. They had a stealth operation of wide-spread ballot-stuffing.

1. They “salted” the vote in rural areas in swing states like Wisconsin. Many small towns were reporting suspicious registrations. This is an great strategy because there were no flashing lights or big red flags. In addition to stuffing the ballot box in the big cities like Milwaukee and Racine, they planted extra votes around small towns in such a way as to be undetectable. This is why they fought so hard on voter ID. Lax voter ID and early balloting enabled them to register by the carload and vote for Obama in small towns. The precincts still go Republican, but not by as much. The extra margin makes the difference in a 1 point race.

2. The beauty of this strategy is that you can narrow your effort and focus your resources to just those states (and counties) where it matters.

3. I look forward to a study of the “over-vote” for president in Wisconsin and Ohio. The over-vote is the number of ballots that had votes for president but none of the down-ticket candidates. This would be an indication of the salt the small town vote strategy. The “salted” votes would only have presidential votes because the financiers of this operation just want a federal win and don’t care about the rest.

4. In states with electronic voting machines, votes were flipped and stolen. Being wise in the ways of the world tells me that the temptation to build a “back-door” into voting software is overwhelmingly attractive because you can sell that access for a lot of money. Anecdotes of machines showing Obama when Romney was selected were reported. But that probably was only a part of it. The big stealing can go on after the voting is done but before it is counted. I can envision software that takes running vote totals for a candidate and then “flips” just enough votes for the Democrat to win, but not so many as to be suspicious.

5. Executing this strategy is expensive. It has to be planned carefully. Where to stuff and by how much so it isn't detectible has to be worked out. Organizing the carloads to travel from town to town is a logistical task. An operation of this sophistication takes professional expertise to plan and execute and that takes money. Enter Mr. Soros.

Same whacked out conspiracy theory, different losers. I won't link to Free Republic, but this should tell everybody the validity of this long running conspiracy theory trotted out by the losing side every election.